Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM Lens

Announced this lens besides 5D IV and EF 24-105mm f4L IS II, what is your expectation of this lens?

Will it be a successor to the mk1 and mk2? will it be a better choice over f4 version? What would expect it to be compared to other lenses already availble.

All the questions and we will wait the answers.

https://www.bhphotovid​eo.com …f_16_35mm_f_2_8​l_iii.html

The few pros who have tested the prototypes are quite positive.
Considering that 9 years have passed since the v2, and the stronger competition Canon is facing on UWAs, I expect the lens to be up to the expectations.

Will it be a prime killer ? That's the real question.
It is true that today's UWA zooms have reached UWA prime's quality.
But it is also true that today's UWA primes are 2 stops faster.

The thing about new gen canon lenses is that it's less prone to flare.

I prefer my 16-35 f/2.8 mk2 over my f/4 IS version.

Try getting an artistic sunflare shot with a new f/4IS version. Also I find the f/4IS cannot focus well when the sun is hitting the lens.

I'm considering on buying another f/2.8 mk2 for the sake of having a new "old" design lens.

I'm assuming the f/2.8mk3 will be killer for me if I use it for events photography indoors when I'm not using remote flash. The f/4IS version is ridiculously sharp but for remote flash starburst shots I prefer the f/2.8mk2.

AlanU wrote in post #18109895
The thing about new gen canon lenses is that it's less prone to flare.

I prefer my 16-35 f/2.8 mk2 over my f/4 IS version.

Try getting an artistic sunflare shot with a new f/4IS version. Also I find the f/4IS cannot focus well when the sun is hitting the lens.

I'm considering on buying another f/2.8 mk2 for the sake of having a new "old" design lens.

I'm assuming the f/2.8mk3 will be killer for me if I use it for events photography indoors when I'm not using remote flash. The f/4IS version is ridiculously sharp but for remote flash starburst shots I prefer the f/2.8mk2.

good starbursts dont necessarily mean bad flare does it? I do have a lens that has hands down the coolest starbursts and at the same time, it seems pretty resistant to flare.

Also i just bought Tamron 15-30 f2.8, and this will prevent me from this mk3 for long long time i think.

What is people looking for in UWA lenses in general? Sharpness? most are sharp already, flare? someone can use this in artistic way and it shouldn't be the only con.

Weight and price are something permanent, always weight and price are issues no matter how good/bad is the lens.

The question is, how wide is WIDE enough we need, and how fast we need it.

Charlie wrote in post #18109900
good starbursts dont necessarily mean bad flare does it? I do have a lens that has hands down the coolest starbursts and at the same time, it seems pretty resistant to flare.

If I use my f/2.8mk2 @f4 I can get pleasant easily achieved starburst during a wedding reception. Shooting the Canon f/4IS zoom wideopen it's different in how the lens reacts to the same amount of flash output. The starburst is more defined but not what I'm accustomed too. This comment is based on how the gear performs while running/gunning during events and not home experiments.

And this is first time i read comments about the flare between f/2.8mk2 and f/4IS, i can't wait to check out my Tamron flare, also will see how this new lens flare performance will be.

Is the hood helping to prevent or eliminate or minimize the flare or it has no much effect for flare?

And what about using filters, is the flare more ugly with filters regardless which lens is used?

Any more review?
It seems not much review anywhere.
Any release date?

HKFEVER wrote in post #18112057
Any more review?
It seems not much review anywhere.
Any release date?

Patience, patience, patience!!!

I'm assuming the mk3 will perform exactly like the 16-35 f/4IS but lack image stabilization and simply 1 stop faster.

The 16-35 f/4IS is slower glass but it certainly shows how the 16-35 f/2.8mk2's age as far a IQ is concerned. I'll take the f/4IS wideopen over a 16-35 f/2.8mk2 stopped down to f/4.

AlanU wrote in post #18112706
I'm assuming the mk3 will perform exactly like the 16-35 f/4IS but lack image stabilization and simply 1 stop faster.

The 16-35 f/4IS is slower glass but it certainly shows how the 16-35 f/2.8mk2's age as far a IQ is concerned. I'll take the f/4IS wideopen over a 16-35 f/2.8mk2 stopped down to f/4.

Same my thinking, but then this mk3 will be better stopped down to f4 than F4IS version, otherwise it is not an update or improved lens.

It doesn't have to be better than the F4 when stopped down to F4 to be an improvement... Some of us actually buy it specifically to have 2.8 available. If it's better than the mk2, then it's an improvement and the F4 is a moot issue.

battletone wrote in post #18112881
It doesn't have to be better than the F4 when stopped down to F4 to be an improvement... Some of us actually buy it specifically to have 2.8 available. If it's better than the mk2, then it's an improvement and the F4 is a moot issue.

I own both........

The f/4IS produces much better images and it's more similar to the IQ you get with a 24-70L f/2.8 mk2.

The 16-35L f/2.8mk2 is good enough but nothing to be rave about regarding sharpness. I use my for events photography alot an it's welcoming to know mk3 is coming out.

If I was a landscape guy I would have dumped my f/2.8mk2 a long time ago. However my scope of work I want fast primes and f/2.8 zooms in most cases.

AlanU wrote in post #18112904
I own both........

The f/4IS produces much better images and it's more similar to the IQ you get with a 24-70L f/2.8 mk2.

The 16-35L f/2.8mk2 is good enough but nothing to be rave about regarding sharpness. I use my for events photography alot an it's welcoming to know mk3 is coming out.

If I was a landscape guy I would have dumped my f/2.8mk2 a long time ago. However my scope of work I want fast primes and f/2.8 zooms in most cases.

Interesting point of veiw 'produces much better images'? and you cant make comparisons with the 24-70 2.8, that lens is in a league of its own, but I will say that as a retired travel/landscape and event photographer
the 16-35 f2.8 mkII is a better lens than the f4IS, I traded in a perfectly good if not slightly work battered f2.8 version to get the f4IS, and as much as I tried I just didn't get on with it, in my view it was pants compared
to my old 2.8 version soft corners and all its faults, maybe I spent too many years using it as my work horse, but the f4IS went back as a part EX on a Canon EF 24mm f1.4 mkII........ this blew the f2.8 and f4 versions of the 16-35 away,
My whole lens collection slowly got switched to primes, 24,35,50,85 and 135, but the 24 and 35 were too close together so I just sold the 35mm f1.4 and picked up a new 24-105 f4 which is amazingly sharp
on the 5d mkII and mkIII, and now I have sold the 50,85 and 135 since retiring I am now thinking about a new 16-35 f2.8 mkIII, for travelling/holidays/fa​mily time, its just so versatile and when its tripod mounted it will be a landscape animal.........

Tareq wrote in post #18112678
Patience, patience, patience!!!

I sold II right after the news came out